About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
supports [speaker not understood] and maintain various uses and we strongly believe that maintaining the existing rules regarding uses in historic buildings will directly fulfill this goal. with all that said, i respectfully request that the commission maintain the existing historical use controls as part of the western soma plan. thank you. >> thank you. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. john kevlin here with the law if ierv of rubin junius. i want to talk to you about two specific issues in the western soma today. first is the historic use controls that luke was just referring to. these are currently in effect throughout the eastern neighborhoods and actually currently in effect under the existing controls in west soma. and essentially what these do is for certain classes of historic buildings, it relaxes the use controls in them with the goal of allowing the buildings to stay under operation, giving them flexibility so they can maintain and preserve them adequately since they all are historic resources. so, currently in the west soma, excuse me, this is a little technical so bear
of situations in this are already legal non conforming uses and in the night time entertainment they are and they're not permitted and office in the area and it's not permitted anywhere in western soma and those two uses and everybody that exists, everybody that is legal and exists are probably non conforming uses. in terms of creating new non conforming uses there is none of that but a good one is the creation of pdr in bay view as well as other examples. >> i think the notice is just important because we get people at the last minute that who didn't realize this was going on because they didn't get a legal notice and people don't see things until they're in front of their faces anyway, and i guess the other question about the notification. okay. now you're going to have legal non conforming uses and some knew that but they were allowed to exist. is there like the eastern neighborhoods some amnecessity or process by which you are doing letters of determination? what is the process if you're existing legal non conforping office use and now we're going to be zoning you in the
block long district would decrease the diversity of use in the district and limit other neighborhood serving uses in the neighborhood. this concern is the reason financial institutions require conditional use authorization in this district and the reason that a similar request for sterling bank in 2005 in this location was disapproved by the commission. and conditions in the neighborhood have not changed. last october the [speaker not understood] restaurant burned down. local merchants association and other groups used the restaurant as a meeting place. sterling bank has offered to allow merchants and others to use the 545 square foot rear portion in this space now occupied by the bank office as a community meeting room. the need for such a community meeting space will decrease when the [speaker not understood] is reconstructed. the department has received letters of support for the project from the greater west portal merchants association, greater west portal neighborhood association and three additional letters of support from area merchants. the department recommends disapproval
. >> i would be happy to talk to ms. rogers about typos, uncertainty about use of word, vagueness in order for that to disappear prior to this group hearing it on the 29th because i do not think this document is clear because of those things i'm observing. >> okay. any additional comments? commissioners there say motion and a second to continue items as proposed, specifically item one to december 13, item six to december 6, and item 11 to november 29. commissioner tone. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> commissioner avery with commissioner with you. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes. all things under the consent calendar are routine by the commission and will be acted upon one roll call vote by the commission. there is no discussion unless the staff or public requests and in that case will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a future hearing. case dolores terrace and request for condominium conversion. case 343 frederick street and request for >> san
to nonstudent housing use. so, that beg the question of under what circumstances would the planning department need to be aware of that type of conversion. and i think the staff did a great job of pointing out there are only three limited circumstances. one is with the exemption from inclusionary housing requirements is taken advantage of. the other is the f.a.r. bonus, but that's only available in two of the c3 voting districts. -- zoning districts. the other is the exemption from the dwelling unit mixed requirement. that is a limited number of zoning districts as well. and i do appreciate that supervisor kim's office is clarifying the intent of the legislation in that regard, but quite frankly that's not the way it's currently drafted. a few other things i want to be clear as to what the legislation currently requires. it requires every entity that owns, operates or controls student housing to file an annual report with very extensive and proprietary information about all of its student housing, including existing student housing and on-campus student housing regardless of whether any new st
things and i encourage us to have that debate as soon as possible so i would like to hear it on the 29th. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i think the issue here is the fact if the supervisor can move forth without the input and we want input by that time we need to stick with the 29 because we don't have to and we heard from members of public they want the conversation here at planning. they feel it's the appropriate place to have some of the discussions and i agree exactly with that that we need to have the discussion here so that people and figure out if we need more workshops, more follow up. i think there is a lot to be discussed here. i like when we took supervisor chu's legislation and look it apart and had a number of hearings. we didn't just continue it out. we had a bunch of hearings. i don't think the decisions being made about what vote we would or wouldn't take on the 29th but i think it makes sense to hear the legislation before it gets to the board of supervisors and have our input. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just like to request too as part of the next hearing perh
to establish 108,399 gross square feet of legal office use in a pdr-1-g zoning district and 68-x height and bulk district. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the items proposed on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commissionedthv fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. which places you under your commissioners questions and matters. item 3, consideration of adoption, draft minutes of special meeting of october 11, 2012 and draft minutes of regular meeting of october 18, 2012. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioner sugaya? >> yes, on thursday, october 11 under item 1, which is on page 2 under speakers, i believe didn't sue hester testify on this item? 295 as related to the transit center district plans. anyway, her name is not listed. maybe the secretary can check. -- check on that. >> i can c
people, i'm sure there are plenty of those uses 234 western soma. i think most of the people we've heard from are people who have legal nonconforming uses * that currently are in areas that don't permit office because right now under the current zoning you can't really have office anywhere. or you have people who want to do new office, which obviously that is a very sensitive issue in western soma because very high demand for office space. but it's not the kind of space -- not the kind of use they want to have to be prevalent throughout the plan area. we have the wmuo district on townsend street. we are permitting one floor of office space in the rcd -- >> right, already existing office. >> right. >> on top of that looking at now you have these article 11 buildings which i imagine many of which have existing office in them because they were allowed to today, now in the future won't be able to. so, looking at how we treat -- even if we choose to call out that category in a separate manner, i just think we need to figure it out because, you know, and actually put [speaker not understood]
street c. request for conditional use authorization. item 5, case no. 2012.0725c, 475 eucalyptus drive, request for conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards, commissioners, for these items. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner moore? >> i ask that item 475 eucalyptus drive on consent, i have a couple of questions. and i think this commission needs to have instructions on how this particular use is regulated. so, i ask that it be moved. >> commissioner antonini. >> given that, i would move that we approve the other two items on the consent calendar. those being items number 3, i guess it is, and 4. >> second. >> no, it's 2 and 3. >> just to make it clear, one is 738 6th avenue and the other is 501-503 and 505-51 1 laguna. >> i second that. >> on the motion to continue items 3 and 4 -- excuse me to approve items 3 and 4, excuse me. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >>
and some of the controls adding to the plang code, give overview of controls for land use like retail and housing and office and look at the intraim corridor and speak briefly about the administrative code amendments and overview of implementation within the planned area in terms of impact fees. so to begin and that's washed out there. i hope that you can see it better on your screens but the maps are in the packet also. this is the current zoning within western soma and you can sees since this was put in place in the plan and harrison street on the middle is essentially the spine. there is a somewhat different character north and south of harrison street that is strongly related to the presence of the freeway which somewhat kind of disconnects the neighborhood there. all of these districts are what are considered soma mixed use districts, and generally north of harrison street where you see a lot -- on this map at least, yellows and greens, but generally mixed use and includes housing and south of harrison street where you have sli primarily housing is extremely limited only to
avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> i am present. [laughter] >> and i would like to move continuance of item 1, item 2, item 3, and item -- those specified in item 15 to december 13th. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> a
consulted with outside counsel in hopes of finding this parcel was in compliance with the trust use. that led to a dead end. >> you expect the value to be pretty low. >> very low. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm glad the project is coming forward and i very much appreciate commissioner antonini's questions about the grass. i would agree with him that the drought resistant trees offer [speaker not understood] being in the drought or dry instead of those kind of trees which help us also with sun and wind and protection of the adjacent unit which is energy efficiency. the one thing i would like to put a question mark to is that light green area astroturf for dogs. where did that come from? it is astroturf, artificial grass for dogs. >> it will be something that will be easy to clean, permeable, but easy to clean. >> i haven't seen the stuff you're talking about. i'm not very happy about that being a feature of public open spaces, dogs, people or both of them. we should carefully look at that as nothing we really want to be associated with. >> commissioner sugaya. >> y
plan obviously gives us dimensional ideas. however, what this thing will look like on the outside is unclear to me. the reason why i'm asking that question is that several months ago we approved a project and when it was built the community came to us and said that they were very, very disturbed about what they thought we approved and what they got was completely different. that speak to the height of the sign, the location of the sign and a little bit concerned that the current glazing is more like the opaque, looks like your sunglasses type glazing. i had hoped that there would be more disclosure relative to transparent glass, some understanding of a friendly face to the neighbors. signage which does not overwhelm an 11 foot 6 facade and on and on and on. so, i think i need a little bit more information to be supportive of this project. i am understanding of the difficulties of seven years of an empty space. however, what i am approving here does not have the type of disclosure i'm looking for. >> commissioner, it's my understanding they don't plan to make many changes to the st
'm perfectly fine with that. i think it's in the details a lot of us have questions about and are completely clear about. * negative declaration i do support that move. and i think the other aspect of it is ms. hester said that if the supervisor would open it up a little bit, there may be other areas of c-e-q-a reform that we could be looking at that he hasn't thought of or haven't been brought forth by the people he's been talking to. and ms. hester might have additional in the neighborhood organizations might have additional c-e-q-a reform ideas that could be incorporated into this process. i do have a question with respect -- well, back to the original question that supervisor borden started with or other commissioners have mentioned. in terms of the process of automatically going to the board of supervisors on issues like zoning or whatever that they also have jurisdiction over , isn't the wording in the legislation such that it says the board of supervisors will be the final certification body? i didn't quite understand that language. because if we're now saying that the -- that this c
, request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. i'm rick crawford of department staff. this case is a request for conditional use authorization to expand an existing residential care facility for the elderly from five beds to ten beds in the rh-1-d residential family detached district. the expanded facility would include six beds for ambulatory patients and four beds for nonambulatory patients. the project site is within a fully developed mixed use area surrounded by residential uses to the west and the north and commercial and institutional buildings to the east and the south. the facility is within the cluster of institutional uses on eucalyptus that serves as a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the shopping center. the project is an expansion of the small residential care facility and as such is not expected to effect traffic, parking or transit operations in the neighborhood. the size of the proposed use is in keeping with the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood and the building on the site would remain resi
to be better than us after a bunch of trades. the los angeles dodgers are -- all right. the giants. they're down to two games of cincinnati. they win three straight. the reds are? >> audience: out of here! >> it has to be louder for the next two. are you ready? the giants go to st. louis and need to win there and back home. the st. louis cardinals are? >> audience: out of here! >> now for the big one. the mighty american league detroit tigers. you ready? the detroit tigers -- they are? audience: out of here! >> you never disappoint. here is my partner mike. >> well, we have become an organization of expertation. there's expectation when you win a championship in 2010 and there is expectation when you get in that ballpark everyday and it's over flowing with your love and affection and there is purity in the formula that this organization goes about trying to meet those standards of excellence. it starts with the fans of historians that we call investors that kept us here in san francisco and goes to the front office comprised of men and women dedicating their lives to this team
using your can calculations because you're already down pricing it to fit into the category as it is. if the unit would normally be $600,000, you're probably selling it for 200,000. i'm just throwing out some numbers, but, you know, that may be an exaggeration. but let's say 500,000 or 250, perhaps. is it thectionv there a way to still price it at what would be the right price and they could continue work out some kind of financing structure work there? payments would be aloe questionvthctionv don't what they're paying in rents or close it it, but it would be spread out over a longer period of time so their sale price ends up being more in keeping with what everyone else is getting the ownership unit for. >> should the unit go from receiptctional owner and priced at the ownership level, that would still be at the below market rate -- [multiple voices] >> yes. >> i don't know. it's an interesting concept. we can review it. >> not being discriminatory, but someone is coming in to buy a unit under the ownership. and if there is one being converted, that person who is currently in there
. further under the consent calendar item six at 2895 san browny avenue request for conditional use authorization. this project sponsor has requested a continuous to december 6. >> is there any public comment on these two items? >> do you want to talk about item 11? >> six? >> 11. >> yes. >> under the calendar with consultation with the city attorney's office this item needs to be continued to november 29. >> could you repeat that item, that last item please? >> absolutely. commissioners, under your regular calendar item 11 the amendments to administrative code chapter 31 to clarify certain procedures provided in that specifically ceqa is proposed for continuous after consultation with the city attorney's office. >> is there any public comment on the three items that are proposed for continuance? >> regarding of course lack of public notification in a timely manner. it is wrong with state law with regard of the sunshine act of the legislature or ceqa. there is no way in which the city or the city counties as administrative district of the state can pass a laws or even consider law
action coalition and on behalf of our 70 something members. this project was presented to us earlier in the year and to make its a brief as possible, we loved it. it's right in our sweet spot. the urbanism, fantastic, on-site affordable housing. enormous amount of bicycle parking. it is a strong and welcome addition to this evolving neighborhood. i think the benefits of this project are so obvious and so overwhelming i'm not sure exactly why i'm here except i fear physical violence from bob if i don't express these views. [laughter] >>> i don't think you should hesitate a second before approving this project. it's wonderful. >>> good afternoon, commissioners, danny campbell with the sheet workers local 104. and i echo that gentleman. this is going to be a great benefit to the community. you know, the open spaces that i saw, there's really exciting. the planner mr. guy said, it meets the goals of the transbay plan. you know, there are wonderful economic benefits with the fees it's going to bring the city. i think this is a great project so we look forward to your support. thank you. >
to creating a safe, thriving and respectful environment. when rooster tail restaurant informed us that they were proposing to expand and have an outdoor dining room patio, we became very concerned. since there were noise and pre-existing pests and rodent issues in the area. residents had valid concerns about noise, sanitation, and cleanliness. our four-block area is made up of three-fourth residences and one-fourth businesses. because we felt our concerns were not being adequately addressed a petition was started. people who lived on sutter, webster post and fillmore signed an opposition and collect $5 5 signatures. we appreciate rooster tail restaurants support of our concerns, putting up signage, and to hose and clean the outdoor patio nightly and maintain cleanliness. since this past monday i have been informing all the petition signees of these recent changes and inquiring whether they agree to these changes or wish to continue opposing. as of today, 26 signees have responded, but there has not been a consensus since some are still opposed. our actions have always been motivat
know it would use the tracks. it would go through there, but they're sort of -- the stations are further to the north and further to the south of the site. so, that kind of -- we're keeping track of those things. that is the extent of the information that we have. so, i'll leave it up for questions and more details. >> thank you. we'll open it up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll go to commissioner comments. commissioner moore. >> thank you for the [speaker not understood] and good sense of humer. [laughter] >> i have a separate question. you addressed some more comprehensive issues sub fronding the project. that being leland. but i have a focused question and then the issue of bay lands and brisbane because that is a megaproject and i hope that we will be able to create a dialogue with the city about projects which are compatible with each other across jurisdictional boundary lines. the other issue is way back when at the north and to the east there is a small community, almost like a pocket residential. i think it's called litt
, request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the planning commission. sharon young, planning department staff. the item before you is request for conditional use authorization for an outdoor activity area to an existing restaurant located at 1963 sutter street within the nc-3 district, japantown special use district and 50-x height and bulk district. the proposal is to add outdoor area, dining table and chairs for approximately 08 square foot patio enclosed by [speaker not understood] high fence within the rear yard of the restaurant. the proposed outdoor dining area will abut common parking lot located within the mid-block area of the subject block. the restaurant has been in operation since december 2011. the current hours of operation of the restaurant are 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 7 days a week. in the original proposal that was the application. the proposed hours of operation was the dining outdoor patio 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 7 days a week. the proposal would not involve interior [speaker not understood]. to date the department has rec
question for the future because what we may hear later today on our calendar about a potential use on a ground floor of a neighborhood commercial district. we want active uses that are day and night and all these arguments that come up. but if you don't allow them on the second floor, where are they going to be? because they can't be on the ground floor, they can't be on the second floor. you want people to frequent neighborhoods and take care of their business. if they have to go somewhere else, get in their car to take care of some of their business that involves a professional of some kind, you know, it's very restrictive. but that's not what's before us. we only have the ability to pass what this is right now. did you find out about the parking? >> off-street parking for residential, none is required. and it's permitted for .5 cars per unit and conditional use for .75 cars per unit. not permitted above that. >> i think that's pretty restrictive. if somebody wants to build infill parking somewhere in this area and -- our housing would be principally permitted, i would think, alo
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)